Greater Anglia InterCity Service

[Paul.S]

It seems to me that the class 90 fleet are starting to age having been passed over from Virgin & EWS(?). I know the mk3 stock would appear to be in good nick but might it not be better to think about new stock? Maybe something similar to the Pendolinos but without the tilting?

Just a thought...

 

[Rich McLean]

It seems to me that the class 90 fleet are starting to age having been passed over from Virgin & EWS(?). I know the mk3 stock would appear to be in good nick but might it not be better to think about new stock? Maybe something similar to the Pendolinos but without the tilting?

Just a thought...

5 Car IEP?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Class 444? Ideal for that sort of route I'd say.

 

[Rich McLean]

Class 444? Ideal for that sort of route I'd say.

Good shout, but with the Panto instead of the shoes of course

 

[SprinterMan]

Nahh, the current lot are lovely, and perfect suitable for purpose. :P

Adam

 

[Yew]

A decent refurb would be nice though, they do look a bit dated inside.

 

[IanXC]

The 90s are only an average of 1 year older than the 91s, having been built in 1987-1990.

I think a thorough refurbishment of the 90s and the Mark 3s, maybe to the Chiltern power door standard would be a good option.

 

[317666]

If it was necessary for that stock to be replaced, something along the lines of the ÖBB Railjet would not be a bad move if you ask me.

 

[MCR247]

Nah that's too much for that route. Id agree with the 444 style idea which often gets said


Haha if I'd reserved a first class seat and I got the first seat on the left I wouldn't be happy. Especially since I could find exactly the same seat on a southeastern 376! Not what id expect in IC first class

 

[Manchester77]

If Greater Anglia or the next franchis eh older wanted to reaptain these for the next 10+ years I'd imagine that they'd be chilternised - power doors, refurbished interiors etc. and I dunno about the locos

 

[junglejames]

Starting to age? Boy, we may as well scrap everything then! The 90s are working perfectly well. Nice and reliable when looked after. Were at one stage more reliable than pendys. Scrap the pendys?!!!
Good acceleration, and showing no signs of stopping yet.

Mk3 wise. The 1st class coaches have been allowed to age. They hardly got anything done to them. Standard class though is quite pleasant. They have a nice decor and warm materials, and when looked after, are perfectly suitable for just about anything. I certainly dont think the standard class coaches are showing their age.

Compare these to the 444s. They are bland and cold (not as in the temperature). Even with better seats, I cant see them as an improvement.

If you do want to do anything. Then Chilternise the Mk3s. WSMR proved that you dont even need to change the IC70 seats to make the Mk3s look and feel the most luxurious inside, and one thing i noticed last time i travelled on the chilternisers, is how modern these Mk3s look externally. The most modern looking coach in the UK.

We cant keep replacing trains as soon as they hit their 2nd birthday (you know what i mean). Its too expensive. If something works, it doesnt need replacing, unless you can really improve on what you have. WSMR/ Chiltern have proved that you dont need to replace Mk3s to improve on them. In fact, you will really struggle to improve on the Mk3. Chilternise them, and they will surely be good for another 20yrs. A fraction of the cost of a newbuild, and with a life span of at least half that of a newbuild, if not more.

 

[corfield]

I travelled on the first class portion of one of these a few months back, Ipswich-London. I must admit (living in the Chilterns and used to Chiltern Rail, plus FGW / ICWC, XC & SWT as my main travel routes), I was taken aback at the very dated/slightly collapsing feel of the coaches. It felt like being transported back to the 80s, not in a nice way, but in a "how dirty is this cushion" way - reminding me of those grim slam door NSEs I used to commute on so many years ago.

So, whilst the above is to be expected given the age and lack of update, yes, they definately need a refurb. The FGW interiors seem great to me, very comfortable, although I prefer the high backed chair sets as it cuts down noise & improves privacy, especially from groups sitting at tables (people seem to make a lot more noise in a foursome, than split into two pairs, which makes sense, but is still annoying).

I have to admit though, being a semi-regular user of Mk3s (FGW), I am not that much of a fan of it, they seem very bouncy and noisy (wires clanging, lots of groaning/squeaking and so on) compared to modern MU coaches (22X/390/444) - although I haven't actually been on Chiltern's modernised ones (all 165/168s from my local station).

The GA fleet is quite large, wiki says 150 vehicles. I'd have thought it best to hang on to these until anything is ever done to upgrade the line before investing in new stock. 125mph+ capable IEP seems a bit of a waste. I'd support a modern version of the 444, they are lovely trains to be on.

What are they planning to equip TPE with once Liverpool-Leeds is electrified ?

 

[jopsuk]

Refurb them, with all new seating, Chiltern-style power doors (but retain/renew the vestibule doors) and all formations the same.

 

[Aictos]

Refurb them, with all new seating, Chiltern-style power doors (but retain/renew the vestibule doors) and all formations the same.

I agree, simply Chilternise the entire Greater Anglia fleet and it's good for another 30 years.

I used Chiltern last week and was very impressed with the refurb, be nice to have the same for ALL of the Mk3 fleet both HST and Loco Hauled!

 

[bronzeonion]

Give the 90's a thorough going over, like others have said Chilternise the MK3's and the DVT's are fine as they are. Paint them in a more permanent Greater Anglia livery then there you go. No need for awful Desiros!

 

[IanXC]

I have to admit though, being a semi-regular user of Mk3s (FGW), I am not that much of a fan of it, they seem very bouncy and noisy (wires clanging, lots of groaning/squeaking and so on) compared to modern MU coaches (22X/390/444) - although I haven't actually been on Chiltern's modernised ones (all 165/168s from my local station).

As I understand it that noise is mainly from the corridor connections, as in an HST (and a 90 or 67 set in 'push' mode) the coaches are having to push up against each other - I presume they have some kind of rubbing plate?

Chiltern's refurb includes power doors immediately either side of the corridor connection, which I imagine make a big difference to this noise. Perfect for the sleeper stock I'd have thought!

What are they planning to equip TPE with once Liverpool-Leeds is electrified ?

(Much as the original announcement was Manchester-Leeds, they really meant as far as the ECML at York)

As far as I know there's been no official announcement, even of a consultation or invitations to tender. Some people on the forum have speculated that the route could provide a home for the 365s if they're displaced by IEP, but really, who knows at this stage!

 

[D365]

I reckon, if it is really necessary, 110mph intercity 379s (to provide more unity within the greater fleet) or 344s. Not IC225s. A Chiltern-style refurb would do the current sets justice.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I reckon, if it is really necessary, 110mph intercity 379s (to provide more unity within the greater fleet) or 344s. Not IC225s. A Chiltern-style refurb would do the current sets justice.

Can Class 379s reach 110mph? I'm sure they're only cleared for 100 max... Also, what's a 344? I hope you don't mean a 334, I can't imagine they're at all suitable!

What's the top speed on the GEML anyway? Without knowing better I'll guess at 100, but I'm guessing 90mph may be slightly closer.

 

[SprinterMan]

Can Class 379s reach 110mph? I'm sure they're only cleared for 100 max... Also, what's a 344? I hope you don't mean a 334, I can't imagine they're at all suitable!

What's the top speed on the GEML anyway? Without knowing better I'll guess at 100, but I'm guessing 90mph may be slightly closer.

379s cannot currently reach 110, but LM's upgrade of the 350s has maybe indicated it is a possibility.

The max speed on the GEML is 100mph, so 110mph would be redundant without a track upgrade anyway.

A 344 is what an AC 444 would be, and it has been suggested something similar to these will be built to replace the LHCS.

Adam :P

 

[dk1]

What's the top speed on the GEML anyway? Without knowing better I'll guess at 100, but I'm guessing 90mph may be slightly closer.

100mph Norwich-Chelmsford. A mix of 80/85/90 to Maryland & a mix of 70/80 to Bethnel Green.

 

[eastdyke]

Forward plans (and that is most relevant) are to raise line speeds:

LST-Shenfield to 'circa 100 where possible'
Shenfield-Ipswich to 100 where lower at present (although 100 predominates it is not currently so throughout) and where possible to 110.
Ipswich-Norwich as Shenfield-Ipswich (I have seen a vague mention of 125 for this last IPS-NRW section but do not believe it to be either sensible or necessary).

Any future NRW-LST stock will need to be specified at 110mph.

It is an aspiration of local politicians to achieve the full journey in 90 minutes.
With so many potential freight/outer suburban conflicts on the route they are most unlikely to see it in their lifetimes.

 

[Paul.S]

I travelled from Norwich to Stratford and back yesterday. Found the carriage was very squeaky and bouncy. When being pushed to Norwich there was lots of loud clunking and banging on starting from each station... I expect there to be some but this was loud..!! Also was surprised to see class 321x3 working a train to Norwich from Liverpool street... Comfy? Lol

 

[D365]

379s cannot currently reach 110, but LM's upgrade of the 350s has maybe indicated it is a possibility.

The max speed on the GEML is 100mph, so 110mph would be redundant without a track upgrade anyway.

A 344 is what an AC 444 would be, and it has been suggested something similar to these will be built to replace the LHCS.

Adam :P

Beat me to it!

 

[colchesterken]

I went to London yesterday and agree with all that has been said
Mk 3 best stock ever.put some seats in the DVT or better still convert it to a full disabled and carer vehicle with diasbled toilet that would get over 2019
Full rebuild of class 90s and full refurb of Mk 3 move the seats up a bit few extra inches of legroom would be super. I was looking at the lights they are a bit dreary fit full length strip lights that dim a bit in the dark so they are OK for reading without dazzle Power doors and we have a train set that is OK for 10-15 yrs. oh yes and a little speed up.
I posted perv. about using the Witham loops to allow overtaking
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
ooops that was "PREV" no pervs here please

 

[Bald Rick]

Forward plans (and that is most relevant) are to raise line speeds:

LST-Shenfield to 'circa 100 where possible'
Shenfield-Ipswich to 100 where lower at present (although 100 predominates it is not currently so throughout) and where possible to 110.
Ipswich-Norwich as Shenfield-Ipswich (I have seen a vague mention of 125 for this last IPS-NRW section but do not believe it to be either sensible or necessary).

Any future NRW-LST stock will need to be specified at 110mph.

It is an aspiration of local politicians to achieve the full journey in 90 minutes.
With so many potential freight/outer suburban conflicts on the route they are most unlikely to see it in their lifetimes.

Such plans have been talked about for years, hell I even wrote some of them myself. But I wouldn't hold out any hope. All raising linespeeds does, apart from emptying a few bank accounts, is to get the intercity train on to the back of the stopper in front of it somewhat earlier in its journey.

 

[D1009]

Such plans have been talked about for years, hell I even wrote some of them myself. But I wouldn't hold out any hope. All raising linespeeds does, apart from emptying a few bank accounts, is to get the intercity train on to the back of the stopper in front of it somewhat earlier in its journey.

OT, but that's why increasing the Derby Brum line speed to 125 was a waste of money.

 

[eastdyke]

I travelled from Norwich to Stratford and back yesterday. Found the carriage was very squeaky and bouncy. When being pushed to Norwich there was lots of loud clunking and banging on starting from each station... I expect there to be some but this was loud..!! Also was surprised to see class 321x3 working a train to Norwich from Liverpool street... Comfy? Lol

On a weekday units are diagrammed to work:
1p48 17:02 LST-NRW
1p65 19:30 NRW-LST

As well as a couple of morning peak trains from Stowmarket.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Such plans have been talked about for years, hell I even wrote some of them myself. But I wouldn't hold out any hope. All raising linespeeds does, apart from emptying a few bank accounts, is to get the intercity train on to the back of the stopper in front of it somewhat earlier in its journey.

So it's partly your fault then?

When will the published network spec. get a re-write to cap future speed expectation at 100mph?

All trains are 'stoppers' between Norwich and Haughley Junction (31 miles) - all 2trains per hour of them. I fully accept that at the current schedule of 2tph speed increases could not do anything to reduce stock requirements whilst only shaving a very few minutes off timings.

The thread is about rolling stock and as a non-industry observer I was drawing on the evidence available to me (and to the politicians) to arrive at a long term expectation. (Albeit at 110mph and not anything greater).

The GEML is a tricky route as it fits most criteria to be described as 'outer suburban', nonetheless documents continue to denote it as 'IC'. I guess that continued reference to anything greater than 100mph just keeps it hanging in!

Further:
RVAR will at some point impact upon the continued use of current stock, either at any planned refurb or planned replacement.

 

[Bald Rick]

On a weekday units are diagrammed to work:
1p48 17:02 LST-NRW
1p65 19:30 NRW-LST

As well as a couple of morning peak trains from Stowmarket.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---



So it's partly your fault then?

When will the published network spec. get a re-write to cap future speed expectation at 100mph?

All trains are 'stoppers' between Norwich and Haughley Junction (31 miles) - all 2trains per hour of them. I fully accept that at the current schedule of 2tph speed increases could not do anything to reduce stock requirements whilst only shaving a very few minutes off timings.

The thread is about rolling stock and as a non-industry observer I was drawing on the evidence available to me (and to the politicians) to arrive at a long term expectation. (Albeit at 110mph and not anything greater).

The GEML is a tricky route as it fits most criteria to be described as 'outer suburban', nonetheless documents continue to denote it as 'IC'. I guess that continued reference to anything greater than 100mph just keeps it hanging in!

Further:
RVAR will at some point impact upon the continued use of current stock, either at any planned refurb or planned replacement.

The main problem is the level crossings, almost all of which would need upgrading once you go above 100mph. Also keeping the track in good nick is difficult once above 100mph on that ground, especially south of Ipswich with freightliners pounding away.

As I once said to the route's MPs, do you spend £200m upgrading the line to save 5 mins of every service, or do you just not stop every train at Diss?

The best case for improving journey times (as opposed to linespeeds) is to run an hourly service calling only Colchester Ipswich Norwich, with a connecting train following immediately from Ipswich calling all principal stations (an EMU will do). On the opposite half hour an Intercity service calling at the stations as per today. Resource deployment is roughly the same (saves an Intercity diagram + crew at the cost of 2 EMU diagrams + drivers). It wouldn't be particularly popular in Diss, but you knock 10 mins off the journey time to Norwich for no capital expenditure.

 

[eastdyke]

The main problem is the level crossings .... .... It wouldn't be particularly popular in Diss, but you knock 10 mins off the journey time to Norwich for no capital expenditure.

Thanks for that, I will have another look.

 

[Rick1984]

The first time I saw a 321 one in norwich I thought it was because of a failure. I was shocked to read somewhere they where actually using then to increase capacity! I also had the injustice of travelling on one from norwich to london. Not funny!

I would love to see the mk iii 's kept and given a good refurbish, rather than end up with some crumby multiple unit. They are a bit dated at the moment and the fixed armrests can make it difficult for some to get in and out.


Also as far as I'm aware the 90's are good for 110mphm so no problem there?